Canada’s complacency on security can’t last
We can no longer count on U.S. benevolence
Canadian MPs have so far done a betterthan-fair job of pretending not to panic over the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency. Of course they’re quietly growing more terrified with each passing day — none more so, we may rest assured, than Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his senior team.
But there’s more to the smashing of the traditional American political spectrum this year than Trump.
The reality TV star hasn’t just broken the Republican party’s ideological spine, such as it was. He’s also forcing the Democrats, led by presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton, to shift to a more hawkish foreign and security policy than the one seen since 2008 under President Barack Obama, including during the time when Clinton herself was Secretary of State. This much is obvious from her speech Monday in response to the Orlando massacre, remarks overshadowed by Trump’s predictably incendiary, xenophobic response.
The implications for Canada are profound — even if, as many U.S. political observers expect, Trump is crushed in November and spends the rest of his days grinding his teeth and touting conspiracy theories on social media. Canada can no longer count on the perpetual sobriety, benevolence and common sense of Uncle Sam, or on America’s willingness to do all the heavy lifting on continental security and defence, while Canadians enjoy the benefits, in perpetuity.
Hillary Clinton, lest anyone fail to notice, is not a dove in the Trudeauvian mould. “The Orlando terrorist may be dead,” she told supporters Monday, “but the virus that poisoned his mind remains very much alive. We must attack it with clear eyes, steady hands, unwavering determination and pride in our country and our values.”
This was no attempt to duck the reality of what the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant represents, or is perpetrating in the territories under its control. “In the Middle East,” said Clinton, “ISIS is attempting a genocide of religious and ethnic minorities; they are slaughtering Muslims who refuse to accept their medieval ways, they are beheading civilians, including executing LGBT people, they are murdering Americans and Europeans, enslaving, torturing and raping women and girls.”
Clinton called for a stepped-up bombing campaign, “accelerating support for our friends fighting to take and hold ground, and pushing our partners in the region to do even more.” She also drew the link between ISIL and those it may not immediately direct but nevertheless inspires, such as the Orlando murderer. “We face a twisted ideology and poisoned psychology that inspires so-called ‘lone wolves’ — radicalized individuals who may or may not have contact and direction from any formal organization.”
Clinton then mapped out what amounts to a beefedup war on Islamist terrorism within and beyond the United States, comprising much more aggressive dismantling of terrorist networks, additional resources for anti-terrorist investigators and the U.S. intelligence services, and a crackdown on foreign sources of support for Islamists, including from among America’s putative allies, three of whom — Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait — she mentioned by name.
Not a bit of this, in either tone or substance, suggests a Clinton White House would have much patience with a Canadian government still wringing its hands over whether to formally acknowledge ISIL is committing genocide, or to admit Canada is at war in northern Iraq and elsewhere. Nor can Clinton be expected to have time for the equivocations and contradictions that accompanied the Canadian withdrawal earlier this year from the allied air campaign in northern Iraq and Syria.
Trudeau and his senior advisers are very aware now, if they weren’t six months ago, of the linked currencies in Canada-U.S. relations — ours, which is export trade access, and theirs, which is continental defence. It stands to reason that even with a White House under Clinton, the predictable candidate, expectations of Canada on security are about to increase sharply.
In the event of a Trump victory, meantime, all bets are off. This is a man who, in a prepared text in the immediate aftermath of Orlando, imputed terrorist leanings to every Muslim immigrant. His proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States harkens back to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. His approach to global security is to demand protection money from America’s allies. His approach to free trade is to shut it down.
Trump can win; it is not inconceivable. For all of Clinton’s sanity and competence, he is the more compelling communicator of the two, by far.
And yet, amid this cacophony of growing risk, with China and Russia pressing the limits of their old boundaries, with a unified Europe under siege, Canada continues to putter along with the same old debates about our perpetually inept and inadequate military procurements — as though American benevolence and protection were ours to enjoy by right, forever.
It’s a peculiarly Canadian brand of complacency, engendered by long habit and longer peace. Its days, says the stiff breeze blowing from south of the border, are numbered.